One of the main storylines coming out of Iowa is that two Establishment candidates won out there. Hillary Clinton, with her razor thin margin over Bernie Sanders. And Senator Marco Rubio, with his surprising 3d place finish at 23 percent, just behind Donald Trump. Both are hailed as Establishment candidates, and the mainstream press is firming up around them out of fear of the abyss that is represented by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The New York Times endorsed Clinton for the nomination, and Chris Matthews embraced Clinton last night. The Washington Post and Paul Krugman have led the vilification effort against Sanders.
One sign of Rubio and Clinton’s acceptability to the Establishment is the love they share: they both praise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And both have sought to advance their campaigns by kissing up to Israel.
Rubio has promised that on his first day in office he would tear up the Iran deal. Hillary Clinton has promised that on her first day in office she would invite Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit the White House within a month. So love for Israel is the definition of an Establishment candidate.
Let’s look at Marco Rubio first. His Iowa showing has solidified his status as the neoconservative favorite, with all the contributions that flow from such an endorsement. Noah Pollak of the Emergency Committee for Israel tweeted today:
Friend in Republican donor-world: “Out of respect they’re waiting a week before leaving Jeb for Marco, but emotionally they’re already gone”
Eli Clifton reports at Lobelog that Rubio is now poised to win the vaunted Sheldon Adelson primary, the candidate on whom the billionaire would pour his resources. He says Rubio has
made a crucial play for the long-sought endorsement from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam. If secured, their support could unlock the key to as much as $100 million in supportive super PAC spending, if the past presidential election cycle is any indication as to their future political investments.
Going into last night, Rubio struggled to secure the most important endorsement of the hawkish pro-Israel wing of the Republican Party. To be clear, he had the next best thing: the endorsement of billionaire hedge funder Paul Singer who contributed $2.5 million to a super PAC supporting Rubio and held fundraisers for the candidate. Singer, like Adelson, is a generous supporter to groups and politicians that have opposed the White House’s diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. They are both board members of the neoconservative and pro-Likud Republican Jewish Coalition.
Rubio, like Singer, has staked out hawkish foreign policy positions. He cryptically accused Obama of betraying “the commitment this nation has made to the right of a Jewish state to exist in peace.” Pledging his unconditional support to Israel if elected president, Rubio promised he would “absolutely” revoke the Iran nuclear deal if elected president.
As you read that, remember that Adelson called on Obama to nuke Iran, that Donald Trump said that Adelson would mold Rubio into his “perfect little puppet,” and that Paul Singer is a liberal on such issues as marriage equality. But Israel comes first for him.
Last month David Corn called out Rubio at Mother Jones: “Is Marco Rubio a Sleeper Agent for Netanyahu? Why else would the GOP presidential candidate oppose US intelligence keeping an eye on Israel?” Corn focused on an ad in which Rubio attacked Obama for the news that the US had spied on Netanyahu during the Iran deal, so as to counter his moves.
as part of his indictment of Obama, Rubio huffs, “He spies on Israel.”
Rubio’s message seems to be that a strong and effective US leader would not spy on Israel, and that Rubio would not green-light espionage operations that keep an eye on that nation…
Yet Rubio, a favorite of Likud-loving neocons (and reportedly Adelson), castigates Obama for spying on Israel and its spies. Would he really turn off all US espionage programs focused on Israel, which would give the Israelis a free hand to continue their intelligence operations against the United States?
Rubio got his start at a national level with the backing of Norman Braman, a Florida billionaire who regards Israel as the necessary historical answer to the Holocaust, when Jews went like lambs to the slaughter in his view; and that the U.S. must back Israel for it to survive. Rubio first went to Israel just days after he was elected to the Senate in 2010, with Braman.
Now let’s move to Hillary Clinton. Being the establishment candidate on the Democratic side also means being Netanyahu’s friend. Clinton has already won the Haim Saban primary in her party; last summer she promised the megadonor that she would work with Republicans to oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign aimed at Israel.
Then last December she went further, telling the Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution during a conference on the future of Israel and Palestine (to which no Palestinian speakers were invited), that Israel’s “prowess” in war is “inspiring”, that she and the Jewish state were born within months of one another, and she would take the relationship between the U.S. and Israel to “the next level.” That means on her very first day in office she would reach out to Netanyahu:
on the first day I would extend an invitation to the Israeli prime minister to come to the United States hopefully within the first month, certainly as soon as it could be arranged to do exactly what I briefly outlined. To work toward very much strengthening and intensifying our relationship on military matters, on terrorism and on everything else that we can do more to cooperate on that will send a strong message to our own peoples as well as the rest of the world. So that is on my list for the first day.
When [Jeffrey] Goldberg asked Clinton whom she held responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children, she demurred, saying, “[I]t’s impossible to know what happens in the fog of war.” She blamed only the Palestinians, saying, “There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas initiated this conflict.” Claiming “Israel has a right to defend itself,” she said, “I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets.”
Cohn says that Clinton affects cluelessness on the cause of the conflict, and international condemnation of the Gaza slaughter:
Yet Clinton was puzzled by what she calls “this enormous international reaction against Israel,” adding, “This reaction is uncalled for and unfair.”
She attributed the “enormous international reaction” to “a number of factors” but only mentioned anti-Semitism, never citing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands or its periodic massacres in Gaza.
In her book [Hard Choices], Hillary also implies that Obama pressured Netanyahu too much. In 2009, in a widely reported encounter, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told Obama, “If you want Israel to take risks, then its leaders must know that the United States is right next to them.” Obama disagreed. “When there is no daylight,” he said, “Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.” In “Hard Choices,” Hillary takes Hoenlein’s side. “I learned,” she writes, “that Bibi would fight if he felt he was being cornered, but if you connected with him as a friend, there was a chance you could get something done together.”
So eager is Hillary to prove that Netanyahu responded to her reassurances that she abandons the parameters for a two-state solution her husband famously laid out in 2000. In “Hard Choices,” she mentions that Abbas “said that he could live with an Israeli military deployment in the Jordan Valley for a few years beyond the establishment of a new state,” while Netanyahu “insisted that Israeli troops remain along the border for many decades without a fixed date for withdrawal.” Hillary deems these two perspectives equally valid, and even sees in Bibi’s a glimmer of hope. “I thought that was a potentially significant opening,” she writes. “If the conversation was about years, not decades or months, then perhaps the right mix of international security support and advanced border protection tactics and techniques could bridge the gap.”
What Hillary doesn’t mention is that Abbas’ approach conforms to the Clinton parameters – the very document she elsewhere in the book slams Yasser Arafat for not accepting – which propose that Israel leave the Jordan Valley in three years. Netanyahu’s approach, by contrast, flagrantly contradicts those parameters.
In the year since Hillary released her book, she’s done this again and again: Embraced Netanyahu’s perspective even though it eviscerates her husband’s, and Obama’s, vision of a viable Palestinian state.
It’s more understandable that Marco Rubio is running with Netanyahu at his side. Apart from Trump’s possible jibes, what’s the downside? The Christian Zionist branch of the Israel lobby pervades the Republican grass roots. And the rightwing Jewish branch of the lobby, neoconservatism, defines the Republican establishment. So Rubio is a neoconservative “sleeper agent” for the prime minister, as Mother Jones put it in its sensational headline. Though if Donald Trump finds himself in a struggle to the death with Rubio, we can expect him to go after neoconservative donors, in much the way he made fun of the Republican Jewish Coalition for wanting to buy its candidates.
As for Democrats, many despise Netanyahu– Netanyahu ought to be a liability for the Democratic base. Last year two-thirds of Democrats opposed Netanyahu’s appearance at Congress when he defied our president on the Iran deal; only 12 percent of Democrats had a favorable view of him. That number is surely even lower among African-Americans and the young. Of course, the Israel lobby is still such a powerful force in the Democratic Party that even the president was fawning to the Netanyahu administration last week at the Israeli Embassy, but the liberal Zionist branch of the Israel lobby (J Street, Beinart, Peace Now) doesn’t like Netanyahu either. But that’s the establishment! Bernie Sanders is an anti-establishment candidate. Shouldn’t he be running against Netanyahu right now? He wants to expose substantive differences between himself and Clinton. This is one of them.
Thanks to Jewish Insider, James North, Hazel Kahan, Annie Robbins and Adam Horowitz.
I’m glad you put this out there. The primary lineup is beyond pathetic, but it’s still important to make clear who is an establishment candidate and is the least likely to break from the mold.
Bernie and Trump are making huge mistakes already in their post Iowa stumps. Trump is doing exactly the opposite of what I wrote earlier he should be doing; as a matter of fact he’s taking his vindictiveness over the edge with Cruz and that’s a huge mistake because while he’s obsessing over Cruz’s win in Iowa; Rubio is sprinting to 1st place. Why isn’t he attacking Rubio’s establishment creds? He’s an idiot taking on Cruz in NH when Cruz is slated for 3rd place there. And he considers himself savvy and the smartest guy in the room…oh bruuuther!
Bernie oh Bernie! What a blunder attacking Hillary’s social and domestic progressive values, when there is so much foreign policy baggage to unpack with her!
The problem with Sanders is that he and Hillary are not that far apart on social and domestic issues, so he should stop attacking her in this arena except where it concerns special interest funding and billionaire donors, like Saban and her Lobby accreditation.
Instead he needs to distinguish himself on foreign policy issues! He’ll never make it past New Hampshire if he continues to hide his foreign policy strategy and it can’t be two degrees of separation from Hillary’s either. His constituents in Vermont are looking for a harder line with Israel and so are progressives everywhere else, and even some Jews. He can get more Independent support and progressive support if he adopts at a minimum a Rand Paul position on foreign policy; heck maybe he’ll even pick up some Libertarians now that Paul is out of the race.
He needs to expose Hillary’s weakness is foreign policy because she’s a hawk and emphasize her blunders on Iraq, Libya and Syria and that she’ll continue down the disastrous path of the past 20 years! He needs to attack her on the Patriot Act and unconstitutional NSA surveillance that she supports, and finally adopt a different position on Israel! He can’t continue to stand on the wrong side of history and international law in this regard! Foreign policy decisions over the past 20 years have successively led to disastrous consequences in every sense including financially! There are so many blunders to exploit in this terrain.
He would generate a heck of a lot more enthusiasm as he leaves New Hampshire for other states if he rolls out his foreign policy instead of hiding behind it; because if he continues acting coy; deliberately rebuffing questions on Israel and shying away from foreign policy; he’s done after NH. Does he really think he can advance with an ambiguous foreign policy agenda? Hell no! He’s not running for CFO; he’s running for CEO aka POTUS and his denial has got to go or he’s finished.
I don’t focus so much on the GOP primary. The press loves a horse race, but demographically the GOP is already finished. I kind of hope that Rubio wins, because it will show that the mythological “moderate” hispanic candidate who embraces amnesty and endless foreign wars is never going to win an election.
That’s why I keep donating to Sanders, because the real election is right now. Whoever gets the democratic nod gets the White House. Those are the rules now. The U.S. is turning into one large California, permanent democratic control.
That being said, it was obvious from 3000 miles away that Hillary was going to be slavish to Israel in a way that even Obama never was. This is why I’ve been calling for the understanding that even if the grassroots are gone for the lobby, it will take a decade or more for this to make a significant impact.
Secondly, the most powerful aspect of the lobby isn’t AIPAC or J Street, it’s the media. Look at this attack from someone who is often understood as a liberal against Sweden’s FM for daring to criticise Israel:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-14/sweden-s-foreign-minister-misunderstands-international-law
This is a guy who has built a reputation of taking on the settlers. This is classic, virtue signalling by taking on the (easy) targets of the settler youth, but whenever there is any *real* pressure on Israel, they all fall back into line, shoulder to shoulder, defending Israel to death.
This media presence is what separates white Apartheid from Jewish apartheid. Nobody defended white Apartheid in the Western media in the 70s and 80s aside from a few token examples. The opposite is the case on Israel.
Basically the Jewish establishment in the media has to be taken on, and nobody is willing to do that because A) there is no critical mass, and nobody wants to be the martyr and B) many of the pre-supposed critics are already in relationships with members of the Jewish establishment, either as spouses or as close friends. The reality is that the Palestinian presence is virutally nil in the U.S. media so there’s simply no contest there and most of the non-Jews in the media are too cowardly to call out their Jewish friends/spouses on their racism vis-a-vis Jewish Apartheid/Palestinians. You see this all the time.
The white establishment has merged, we see that with Trump(two of his kids have Jewish spouses, his doctor and some of his closest advisors are Jews), Clinton(self-explanatory) and of course Bernie, who is fully assimilated but who nevertheless retains a sentimental attachment to Zionism. Neither of the people in that establishment will call out the Jews in their circles. Who in Bernie’s circle is going to stand up to him? Now think about the same situation in the media.
People underestimate the importance of sociology and personal relationships. So even if I agree with those that say that we can’t wait for the Jewish community to rid themselves of the racism, my counter is that many of the elites are already very comfortable with Jews in general and aren’t comfortable at all with Palestinians(as brown muslims).
Ultimately, what helped white Apartheid to fall is that white liberals turned against it, especially in the media and in the universities. Until elite Jewish liberals in the media/academia turn against Jewish apartheid, nobody in their circle will force them. The only way out I can see is a critical mass of muslim activists, but right now they are too few and too weak and most of them are dealing with issues of Islamophobia in the U.S.
My guess is that most of these Jewish elites will unlikely find their anti-racist voice because for so many of them, Zionism is basically what their identity revolves around. As Max Blumenthal said (somewhat acidly), remove Zionism and they are just another conventional white liberal. They have no other identity aside from Zionism that set them apart from their Christian white liberal counterparts.
Between Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Carson, nearly all the front runners are pro-Israel. (Sanders’ embrace of Israel may not be as tight as the others but he’s a huge improvement over the current occupant of the White House)… So tell me again how the tides of American opinion are supposedly turning? Regardless of who wins in November, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel will win. I know it’s easier to perpetuate your fantasy world by telling yourself that one old Jew in Las Vegas is to blame for all this… but the reality is that civilized people tend to support other civilized people on their own – particularly when they are surrounded by […].
First of all your comment is sickening on many levels, but bigotry like this is really over the top: but the reality is that civilized people tend to support other civilized people on their own – particularly when they are surrounded by savage radical islamists and frankly, I’m surprised you get away with it.
Approximately 320 million of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world live in the neighborhood where your Zionist friends and maybe even you decided to squat and steal land from the Palestinians. So I suggest you take your bigotry and your supremacist bull and move to another neighborhood if you think you’re all so superior and surrounded by savages, cause the round hole ain’t gonna square for your ignorant peg any time soon or EVER.
Yeah, you got it all covered for now with the American political charade parade, but you ain’t the masters of the universe you brag to be — more like a real annoying pain in the ass. And that’s about the size of your importance on this planet.
At a German weblog, published by a former campaign manager of Willy Brand, I recently found an image displaying the differences between Bernie, Hillary and the Republicans, which I found quite convincing:
http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/upload/bilder/160202-Sanders-und-bei-uns-3.jpg